White Potatoes Vs Sweet Potatoes

Should you avoid white potatoes and eat sweet potatoes instead?

Both white potatoes and sweet potatoes contain a variety of nutrients. Here’s the comparison:

7-ounce white potato with skin: 220 calories, 5g protein, 51g carbs, 20mg calcium, 115mg phosphorus, 2.8mg iron, 16mg sodium, 844mg potassium, 4g fiber, .22mg thiamin, .07mg riboflavin, 3.3mg niacin, 16mg vitamin C
7-ounce sweet potato: 208 calories, 3.5g protein, 49g carbs, 56mg calcium, 110mg phosphorus, 1mg iron, 20mg sodium, 693mg potassium, 5g fiber, 4350 RE vitamin A, .14mg thiamin, .13mg riboflavin, 1.2mg niacin, 49mg vitamin C.

So, as you can see, sweet potatoes are a good source of vitamin A, and have a little more vitamin C and calcium (but less iron) than white potatoes; otherwise they're pretty much equal. We eat the potato skins as well as the flesh; the skins of many vegetables and fruits are concentrated sources of nutrients and fiber.

Simples.

10 Nutritional rules.

Here are ten key nutritional rules.

1. Eat every 2-4 hours.

Are you doing this – no matter what? Now, you don’t need to eat a full meal every 2-4 hours but you do need to eat 6-8 meals and snacks that conform to the other rules below.

2. Eat complete, lean protein each time you eat.

Are you eating something that was an animal or comes from an animal – every time you feed yourself? If not, make the change. Note: If you’re a vegetarian, this rule still applies – you need complete protein and need to find non-animal sources.

3. Eat vegetables every time you eat.

That’s right, in addition to a complete, lean protein source, you need to eat some vegetables every time you eat (every 2-3 hours, right?). You can toss in a piece of fruit here and there as well. But don’t skip the veggies.

4. Eat carbs only when you deserve to.

Well, not ALL carbs – eat fruits and veggies whenever you want. And if want to eat a carbohydrate that’s not a fruit or a vegetable (this includes things like simple sugars, rice, pasta, potatoes, bread, etc), you can – but you’ll need to save it until after you’ve exercised. Yes, these often heavily processed grains are dietary staples in North America, but heart disease, diabetes and cancer are medical staples – and there’s a relationship between the two! To stop heading down the heart disease highway, reward yourself for a good workout with a good carbohydrate meal right after (your body best tolerates these carbohydrates after exercise). For the rest of the day, eat your lean protein and a delicious selection of fruits and veggies.

5. Learn to love healthy fats.

There are 3 types of fat – saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated. Forget about that old “eating fat makes you fat” maxim. Eating all three kinds of fat in a healthy balance (about equal parts of each) can dramatically improve your health, and even help you lose fat. Your saturated fat should come from your animal products and you can even toss in some butter or coconut oil for cooking. Your monounsaturated fat should come from mixed nuts, olives, and olive oil. And your polyunsaturated fat should from flaxseed oil, fish oil, and mixed nuts.

6. Ditch the calorie containing drinks (including fruit juice).

In fact, all of your drinks should come from non-calorie containing beverages. Fruit juice, alcoholic drinks, and sodas – these are all to be removed from your daily fare. Your best choices are water and green tea.

7. Focus on whole foods.

Most of your dietary intake should come from whole foods. There are a few times where supplement drinks and shakes are useful. But most of the time, you’ll do best with whole, largely unprocessed foods.

8. Have 10% foods.

I know you cringed at a few of the rules above. But here’s the thing: 100% nutritional discipline is never required for optimal progress. The difference, in results, between 90% adherence to your nutrition program and 100% adherence is negligible. So you can allow yourself “10% foods” – foods that break rules, but which you’ll allow yourself to eat (or drink, if it’s a beverage) 10% of the time. Just make sure you do the math and determine what 10% of the time really means. For example, if you’re eating 6 meals per day for 7 days of the week – that’s 42 meals. 10% of 42 is about 4. Therefore you’re allowed to “break the rules” on about 4 meals each week.

9. Develop food preparation strategies.

The hardest part about eating well is making sure you can follow the 8 rules above consistently. And this is where preparation comes in. You might know what to eat, but if it isn’t available, you’ll blow it when it’s time for a meal.

10. Balance daily food choices with healthy variety.

Let’s face it, when you’re busy during the week, you’re not going to be spending a ton of time whipping up gourmet meals. During these times you’re going to need a set of tasty, easy to make foods that you can eat day in and day out. However, once every day or a few times a week, you need to eat something different, something unique and tasty to stave off boredom and stagnation.

Eat Well

Train Hard

Live Life

Skill Is Not Enough

Surely the average club sportsman doesn't require a fitness program - even those with ambitions of winning competitions? 

After all... Sportsmen aren't athletes... right?

Make no mistake - Sportsmen (at any level) ARE athletes, I am yet to find a sport that doesn’t require a great deal of athleticism.

Strength, power, flexibility, balance, core stability, body awareness, endurance... they're all physical traits that every consistent sportsman (even the fair-weather players) must possess.

The sports industry is littered with gadgets and gimmicks for increasing performance. Yet for all their claims and guarantees most remain independently unproven. Compare that to a basic fitness or sports conditioning program...

I’ll use Golf as an example. After 5 weeks of completing 15 minutes of very simple home exercises 5 times a week, golfers increased their club head speed by an average of 24%. While it could be argued that club head speed is only one small facet of a golfer's overall game, it is highly correlated with a player's handicap. In other words, the lower a player's handicap is, the higher their club head speed at impact tends to be. In fact, a 24% increase relates to a reduction of 4 shots off a golfer's handicap. This is just one of several studies that proves the benefits of conditioning for golf.

For the more serious sportsmen, conditioning can no longer be seen as an unnecessary add-on to their practise routine. Just as a committed amateur athlete spends time on their technique AND their fitness, so must the sportsman who demands to be the best they can. There is a caveat however...

In order to improve performance in any sport, training must be specific to the demands of the game involved. 

Of the few sportsmen who do appreciate the importance of physical training (sadly it is only very few), most still make the mistake of following a general fitness routine.

If you want to consistently perform at a higher level, you need to take a different approach. Not a more complicated approach and not a more time-consuming approach, a more specific approach.

PNF Stretching

Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation has been a revolutionary discovery of the twentieth and twenty first century in sports medicine and rehabilitation. Sports therapists and elite personal trainers employ PNF techniques to increase patients’ functional capacity. Ranging from basic rehabilitation to top performing athletes any patient’s performance can be enhanced quickly through activating the neuromuscular system through the use of PNF.

Range of motion is closely linked to two main elements. Relation between agonist and antagonist contraction closely defines a patient’s ability to stabilise a joint through its full range of motion. Once a lack of fiber recruitment exists due to an inhibited neuron transmission full muscle contraction will not be utilised giving less ability for full range movements and joint stability. The other element for achieving range of motion is closely related to the first element, the Golgi tendon organ. The Golgi tendon organ is made up of collagen one end of the collagen fibers connect into the tendon and the other into the muscle. The main focus the Golgi tendon organ has on range of motion is through muscle control and the amount of force that can be applied to that muscle. The type Ib afferent axon that lies in a fibrous capsule with connecting tendons to the capsule nerve ending exit this capsule and transmit and receive neurotransmission.

Muscle contraction and relaxation has opposing forces that exist to protect the body from overload and injury. The Golgi Tendon Organ is closely responsible for innervating muscle contraction when a load is exerted on the given muscle. PNF uses techniques to overstretch the agonist thereby causing the nerve response from the Golgi organ tendon to send neurotransmission attempting to stop any increase in range of motion, however after a certain point the muscle tendon relaxed as the safety mechanism of the Golgi Organ Tendon is overcome providing greater range of motion. This greater range of motion allows the antagonist to contract harder and in future the new increased range of motion will only recruit the Golgi Tendon Organ when overload is again attempted through either weights or stretching.

In conclusion PNF is a quick and effective way to increase range of motion in a given muscle group, providing a greater reflex response from the antagonist in the given movement of contraction. Stimulating the nervous system increases muscle awareness and explosive power, PNF should be utilised in any sports or rehabilitation program.

Do Calories Count?

Low Carb Induced Ranting! Do you think calories count?
For a while now, I have kept encountering information from people who charge others for their advice on body composition that sets my teeth on edge.
The biggest issue I have with some of these otherwise reasonably educated trainers, is there total lack of grasp of what it really takes to get in great shape. In the interest of fairness it’s probably wise to define what “in great shape” actually means, as we will all have different definitions. If and this is a big if, your goal is to get a bit slimmer, tone up a bit and generally look better than average but be nothing special, then that is one version of being in shape and I accept that. On the other hand, my version of being in shape means a minimum of sub 10% body fat for a man, and circa 12-13% maximum for a woman, my personal goal is to get sub 5%

Achieving this level of body fat whilst also carrying a good degree of muscle mass is a real challenge, and something that is, to be blunt, well beyond the comprehension of anyone who has never done it on themselves. Sure, there are some gifted guys who always hover around 8% come rain or shine, but these will be naturally slimmer, very active guys with spare muscle size. So after that extended introduction, what really gets on my goat is when I read rubbish such as “calories don’t matter so long as you only eat Paleo”, and “I get leaner every time I increase my fat intake”. I truly despair that these unenlightened souls really think it is so easy!

The fact of the matter is that when it comes to getting into “real shape”, the words of former world class bodybuilder Sean Ray have resounded in my head for almost eight years – “Before a contest I don’t go to bed a little bit hungry every night for fun”. Bodybuilders are well known for their masochistic tendencies, and anyone who has ever got into condition sufficient to look good in bodybuilding competition deserves your respect for their self discipline and persistence, but going hungry isn’t something that even the iron fraternity would do out of choice. Rather it is a necessity, and the best trainers and coaches understand this, usually because they have done it themselves.
Now before my words are taken too literally, I absolutely do not mean starving yourself and being permanently in famine. Far from it, there are many ways to skin a cat, and some people flourish on calorie and carbohydrate cycling whereby some days you would never know you are on a diet at all. For myself, I always believe that once you carry a good degree of muscle mass and are reasonably lean, then you must have a decent amount of carbohydrates at certain times (note the emphasis on at certain times) in order to preserve that muscle that you fought so hard to build in the first place. None of this individual variation can get you away from the fact that at some stage you need to create a net calorie deficit.

The reason all this misleading advice spouts forth is because the fitness industry is both extremely faddish and very often reactive rather than proactive. For years we heard the bullshit that calorie counting was the only way to lose fat. This has some truth in it, but the message got muddied and the so -called experts became confused because the fact that calories count became highjacked by low calorie, high sugar food manufacturers who want the unsuspecting public to believe that 200 calories from a nice bowel of low fat, sweet tasting cereal is actually a better breakfast for your health and appearance than 200 calories from boiled eggs! So long as the net calories are equal all is fine, right? No, of course not. Macronutrients have a profound impact upon hormonal and metabolic health and only a fool would suggest otherwise.

To compound matters further, it seems that somehow the calorie debate has become mixed up with the whole carbohydrate versus fat debate, that is a cut and dried case of “essential fats” being essential (wow I hear you cry), and to express it as simply as possible, fats from whole, natural foods are good for you and should not be avoided. Sugar and wheat on the other hand are major culprits in the health woes of the 21st century.

So here are the facts and really this isn’t merely my “opinion”, this is just the way that it is:
Not all calories are created equal, and some are infinitely better for your body than others. Anyone who tells you that calories don’t count is a moron and fails to understand basic mathematics.
I know some of you will want to know this, my own personal rough rule of thumb for getting into superhuman shape is to take in 12 calories per ½ kg of bodyweight, assuming exercise levels are not crazy. So for me right now, at a bodyweight of just over 90kgs, I am probably averaging between 2000 and 2500 calories a day.

In order to get into fantastic shape you need to educate yourself on what type of calories work best for you, and how much. It really isn’t all that complicated, but it does take a bit of time to nail exactly as we are all different. Varying metabolisms, muscle mass, and activity levels can change both variables massively.

As ever, I welcome your comments, and if you think I’ve been a bit harsh or just totally disagree with my take on cardio then please let me know. My word is not gospel and I am always willing to examine different ways of doing things, so I’d be really grateful for any ideas or feedback you give in the comments section below. Your support and input as ever is massively appreciated!

The Importance of Structural Balance

Achieving optimum structural balance doesn't sound half as sexy as building large muscles or dropping 15kg of body fat, but it is a highly important component of achieving either of those goals. It takes on even more significance if you have any aspirations for the playing fields and athletic tracks. It was once written that you can’t shoot a cannon out of a canoe and that is what is essential for you to grasp when it comes to the importance of structural balance. If your “big” muscles are strong, but the fixators and stabilisers that support them are weak, what do you think will happen? Yes that’s right – injury, impaired performance and frustration will all ensue. Forget about working your core for “stability” – focus on large muscles and the muscles that enable them to fire properly and safely. 

I guarantee more powerful endeavors in both the gym and against whichever opponent you chose to pit your wits against.

Now I have a quick personal admission to make here – for my sins I was initially schooled by an old bodybuilder, which means I had fantastic schooling in all aspects of body composition, but bugger all in smart balanced training to achieve a healthy, optimally functioning body. If I had known what I know now then unquestionably I would be a better athlete as I would have worked harder on my shoulder mobility (after I dislocated it) and I would also have a more stable knee as a result of proper training. I would definitely not be semi permanently crucified by the pain in my right shoulder due to supraspinatus tendon inflammation and a host of other rotator cuff problems. Educating one’s self in the importance of achieving structural balance has been a lifetime’s work to date and it isn’t going to conclude any time soon. I must thank my peers as there are no better in the world at fixing up an athlete to reach his / her optimal performance.

Let us break down the key four areas of potential structural imbalance.

Weak Vastus Medialis

The vastus medialis (VMO) is the tear drop shaped quadriceps muscle on the inside of the knee. It is essential to maintain correct tracking of the knee as you move (especially for lateral movements) and I personally blame it’s weakness for a huge number of our leading premiership footballers injury woes.

We should also note that women have notoriously weak VMOs, and as they suffer 4 times the ACL injuries of men (due to the inferior Q angle at which the femur hits the tibia because of the wider pelvis if the female) strengthening the VMO should always be a priority whether we are dealing with a weekend warrior or a top athlete.

A reluctance to squat properly (i.e. deep and below parallel) is a primary cause for the prevalence of weak VMOs. The knee joint was designed to squat to below parallel and the incidence of knee injuries amongst Olympic weightlifters, all of whom squat to the absolute bottom of their range of motion with extremely heavy loads, is amongst the lowest in the sporting world.

So proper squatting is always recommended, with the one caveat that a trainee must earn the right to squat. Proper flexibility is an absolute imperative, as is sound coaching. Nor is throwing a supple beginner into the squat rack usually a clever thing to do as the VMO is unlikely to be sufficiently developed to support proper tracking of the knee in heavy deep squats (if your knees move inwards or outwards as you squat you need to strengthen the VMO in order to limit this dangerous practice). In cases such as these we recommend step ups and one legged squatting movements such as variations on the split squat.

Weak Hamstrings

Hamstrings are designed with two functions in mind – to flex the knee and extend the hips. A weakness in the hamstring can result in overcompensation injuries in the quadriceps or glutes, or pulled / torn hamstring muscles themselves.

An easy way to test the balance of the quadriceps / hamstring structure is to simply compare the maximal effort front-squat to the maximal effort back squat. If front squat strength (primarily focusing on the quadriceps) is less than 85% of the back squat, then there is a structural imbalance that needs addressing.

The best way to address a hamstring weakness is to pick the right rep range protocol. Far too many programs are written with ill conceived time under tension aims for hamstrings. Let’s make this crystal clear – hamstrings, especially the bicep femoris responsible for flexing the knee during leg curl type movements, are fast twitch muscles and therefore respond best to short time under tension (10-30 seconds) and low rep ranges (3-7 reps).

If you wish to strengthen your hamstrings focus on what will actually work and leave the high rep stuff to those who like to exercise with bosu balls and power plates.

Weak Scapulae Retractors

Pull your shoulder blades back. There you go; you have just achieved scapulae retraction. It sounds simple, but far too often we see athletes and desk jockeys alike with rounded shoulders and that thrust forward head look. Achieving good control of the scapula is essential for healthy shoulders as it’s the shoulder blade muscles that help keep your upper arm properly attached to your body!

Prone shrugs (face down on an incline bench, shrugging dumbbells back using only your shoulder blades, and holding the contraction for at least 2 seconds) are a great exercise for gaining scapulae control, and they don’t even require that you use too much weight. In fact as a general rule it’s not necessary to use a huge load when aiming for control – far better to feel the movement in a controlled and precise fashion.

Weak External Rotators

My own personal problem after years of neglect, the external rotators comprise of the teres minor and the infraspinatus muscles of the rotator cuff. They are crucially important for stabilising the shoulder in all forms of throwing, pressing and punching / handing off movements. They are also the best example of the “not being able to shoot a cannon from a canoe” analogy I referred to at the beginning of this article.

If this is an area that you have neglected then swallow your pride and be prepared to use tiny weights for your external rotations. 

If I can use a 3kg dumbbell in a public place, then so can you...

Matthew Page

Paying for Public Parks

Personal trainers, nannies and even dog walkers could face paying thousands of pounds a year to use public parks for business.

Hammersmith & Fulham council have initiated charges of £350 - £1,200 Personal Trainers and I'm sure that it won't be long until many other boroughs and Councils follow suit.

The council's ruling suggests that anyone making money or conducting business in the park will be charged for its use. The fear is that this could become a national concept of charging for open air natural public facilities. It's another revenue stream for the councils but I ask the question, if all participants pay council tax, why then be charged further costs to utilise something that has essentially already been paid for?

I have utilised public parks to train junior football teams and have often utilised the same facilities for private athletic development sessions to young British athletes. I do not charge or charge very little to cover my expenses. I could be forced to regress from charitable sessions as it would be far from cost effective to continue.

Michael Hainge, of Hammersmith & Fulham parks department, said the council is anxious to use parks to fight obesity, but wanted "to ensure programmes were not simply aimed at those already inclined towards exercise". The council said: "Anyone can use our parks free, including personal trainers. But as soon as personal trainers start making money out of the park, they are running a business and need a licence."
Where does this idea end? If I reply to some work related emails on my phone while in a park, am I technically running a business and should I then technically be charged?

I work on trains, should I pay a premium to use my seat as an office space?

I use the roads to drive to places of work, should I pay a premium to do this as I'm running a business?
I pay my Income Tax, Business Rates, Fuel Duty, Road Tax and Council Tax.
Is it fair that I pay for public facilities, again...?

It´s not as if parks are saturated with personal trainers. It may make the council money but it hurts small business. Also, how many people would be out there exercising without a trainer?

The PCT figures published for the first time by the DoH set out the cost of diseases related to being overweight or obese in 2007 and how much it will cost at local level in 2015 if we take no action.

It is estimated that the cost to the NHS in England of obesity in 2007 was £4.2 billion and would rise to £6.3 billion in 2015.

Start charging people for abusing the health service and I will happily pay to use a public park...

Negative Calorie Foods: Fact or Fiction?

Negative Calorie Foods: Fact or Fiction?

All food has caloric content, so the term “negative calorie foods” may sound misleading. Some scientists say that since some foods are harder for the body to digest, the net effect of eating them creates a calorie deficit. In other words, the body burns more calories processing negative calorie foods than the foods actually contain. In theory, the more of these foods you eat, the fewer calories you take in, making them great for those trying to lose weight. However, negative calorie food diets are controversial, and not everyone agrees that negative calorie foods even technically exist. In any case, the fruits and vegetables on the following list are still healthy foods that should be included in any balanced diet.

Berries

Berries are unique among fruit and vegetables in that they contain moderate amounts of protein. Protein is extremely important in dieting, and many people forget they need it, preferring instead to sacrifice heavier foods in favour of those that are relatively empty of nutritional value. Most berries are tasty enough to eat on their own, and since they’re already “finger food” they’re easily portable. They’re rich in antioxidants, Vitamin C, and a host of other nutrients that boost your immune system (something else that’s good). Cranberries and blueberries help flush out your system, and are often used in the case of bladder infection for just that reason. Blueberries are also known, along with raspberries, to contribute to sustained eyesight. All these factors mixed with an extremely low calorie count (at an average of just 50 calories per cup for most berries) make berries a highly desirable negative calorie food.

Fruits and Citrus

At an average of less than 40 calories per fruit, citrus is extremely lightweight for the amount of space they can fill. Loaded with Vitamin C and high in fibre, citrus fruits will help even out your digestive system, and in high enough amounts, even flush it. While not the greatest thing to think about when talking about food, when talking about healthy eating, it’s like the Holy Grail. Adding citrus fruits to your foods will greatly increase your chances of getting that weight off and staying healthy in the process.

Melons

Melons are fantastic summer filler foods with probably the biggest calorie deficit you can get. Since they’re mostly water, they help keep you hydrated which in turn is great for every single bodily function. On top of that they usually run at around 20 calories per wedge, which would be the same size as a 40 calorie citrus fruit or an entire cup of berries. It wouldn’t be very sustainable consume melons alone; they should be part of the trio throughout the day along with berries and citrus.

Vegetables

Ah vegetables. Loathed or loved, they’re just plain good for you, in every way. Everyone knows celery as a nearly-zero calorie food already, but it wasn’t until recently that it became an obvious poster child for negative calorie foods. The real kicker is that celery may be very, very low calorie at only 5-8 calories per stick, but most other veggies follow not too far behind it. Vegetables mix the best (nutritional) qualities of citrus, berries and melons by holding mostly water-weight, containing decent amounts of protein, loads of fibre and they’re rich in nutrients. With all that going for them, all you need are the taste buds to match and you’re all set to follow an extremely effective healthy eating regime.

If You Can't Stomach Fish, These Are The Best Fish Oil Dietary Supplements

Ideally, all nutritionists would recommend eating fresh fish once or twice a week. What if you dislike Fish or cannot source good quality fish? Supplementation is an option, read on to learn more.

Fish oil is the best known source of omega-3 fatty acids, but all fish oil supplements are not the same.  Selecting the wrong supplement could mean that you get little or none of the health benefits associated with omega-3 fatty acids.  What's worse is that some fish oil supplements contain contaminants that can endanger your health. 

In order to choose the best fish oil dietary supplements, there are several things that you, the consumer should consider.  First, there are basic considerations that apply to all dietary supplements, no just fish oil supplements.

You should ask:

What are the health benefits?

The health benefits of omega-3 fatty acids are well documented. 

The brain needs adequate levels of DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) in order to maintain and rebuild cells.  Fish is often referred to as "brain food".  Scientific studies have shown that the omega-3 fatty acids found in some fish support optimum brain function.  Increasing your intake of omega-3 fatty acids may improve your memory and your ability to focus on the task at hand, whether it is taking a test, writing a novel or driving your vehicle.

People suffering from conditions, such as depression, multiple sclerosis, attention deficit disorder and similar problems have shown improvement after increasing their intake of omega-3 fatty acids.  In the studies that support these statements, the participants were given some of the purest and best fish oil dietary supplements.

The heart needs EPA (Eicosapentaenoic acid) in order to maintain proper circulation.  The best fish oil dietary supplements contain both EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids.  The American Heart Association recommends fish oil dietary supplements for people who have suffered a heart attack.  It is believed that fish oil supplements may help prevent certain types of heart disease.

The joints function better when there are adequate amounts of omega-3 fatty acids in the diet.  In research studies, people suffering from rheumatoid and osteoarthritis noticed improvement in flexibility, a reduction in pain, reduced morning stiffness and less dependence on over the counter or prescription pain medications.

Fish oil supplements can improve the moisture content and elasticity of the skin.  They can improve the appearance, texture and strength of a person's hair.  Omega-3 fatty acids are found to serve a function in practically every system of the human body.

Are there any side effects?

The best fish oil dietary supplements are odourless and tasteless.  Capsules are easy to swallow.  They are molecularly distilled to remove all impurities and contaminants.

You should choose a fish oil supplement that is manufactured by a reputable company that sells a variety of health supplements and is not new to omega-3 supplement manufacturing.  Experienced manufacturers know how to choose the source fish and how to properly remove contaminants.

That brings up other questions that apply specifically to omega-3 supplements.

You, the consumer should ask:

What are the ingredients?

Not all omega-3 supplements are derived from fish oil.  Other sources of omega-3 fatty acids do not contain EPA and DHA.  They contain an omega-3 fatty acid that can be converted to EPA or DHA, but the conversion process is inefficient and only a small amount is actually converted.  The only way to be sure that you are getting all of the health benefits of omega-3 fatty acids is to choose a fish oil supplement.

Some fish oil supplements contain artificial flavourings.  In some cases, this technique is used to mask the taste and odour of rancid fish oil.  The manufacturer should collect and freeze the oil when it is first harvested in order to avoid spoilage, but most do not.

What type of fish and what part of the fish is the oil derived from?

If the manufacturer does not list the type of fish, do not buy that brand of fish oil supplement.  Some manufacturers use whatever is cheapest, with little concern for safety.  Many fish have been contaminated by pollutants.  They contain high levels of mercury and PCB's (poisonous substances that are a bi-product of manufacturing processes). 

Fish caught in the Atlantic Ocean are the least safe.  Specifically you should avoid Codfish, (which means cod liver oil), Atlantic Salmon, Shark, and Atlantic halibut.  You should also choose fish oil that is derived form the flesh of the fish, not the liver, because the liver is the dumping ground for every toxin that the fish has ever been exposed to. 

The best choice, according to everything that I have read, is the New Zealand Hoki fish.  It is becoming an increasingly popular choice for fish sticks and fillets, because of the lack of toxins found in the fish’s environment.  Located of the southern coast of Australia, the ocean waters surrounding the island country of New Zealand are considered the cleanest in the world. 

Is the fish oil molecularly distilled?

Molecular distillation removes any remaining contaminants, leaving the purest of fish oil for omega-3 supplements.  Some companies advertise “all-natural” fish oil.  Those fish oils contain numerous contaminants and the only real reason that companies choose to sell them is because they are cheaper to manufacture.

The Bottom Line:

• Omega 3 fatty acids provide numerous health benefits to people of all ages.
• The best known source of omega-3 fatty acids is fish oil
• The best fish oil dietary supplements come from fish that swim in clean ocean waters, contain no additives and are molecularly distilled to ensure safety and purity.

Water Running - Can it Help You

Water running in the deep end of the pool is quite advantageous as an alternative workout for run training. There are a few reasons why I recommend water running in a clients training plan.

One of the primary reasons is if the client has an injury that will not allow him or her to run on a hard surface. Injuries such as Achilles tendonitis, ankle sprains, soreness in the knees, lower back pain, etc.

I also schedule water-running workouts as recovery workouts after a long run or bike session. Another benefit to water running is that the client can do interval workouts in the pool that could be substituted for road intervals or track work. Many runners get injured doing intense interval running on a hard surface. If done in a structured manner, the benefits of an interval workout in the pool can come close to that of an interval workout on land.

I let my clients decide if they want to wear a flotation vest or not wear one at all for their deep-water running workouts. Most articles and research that I’ve read on water running recommend use of a vest as this will help with proper form while completing the workout.
Cadence is a great way to monitor your workout in the pool, about 76 to 80 cycles per minute with each leg will help duplicate land running. On land the recommended cadence is about 88 to 90 cpm, but due to water resistance the equivalent in the water is about 10 cpm less. To break up the boredom of water running I have the clients count one leg cycle for 15 seconds with the goal being 19 to 20 cycles.

I also have the participants wear a heart rate monitor. After warming up, a good range to work in is heart rate zones depending on the type of workout scheduled. Keep in mind that due to buoyancy heart rate is about 10 to 15 beats per minute lower than it would be on land for same effort.

I use two workouts with my clients. The steady-state workout consists of a 10 minute warm-up, then anywhere from five minutes to 10 minutes of steady running. I like to schedule at least three to four of these long, steady intervals with one minute easy between each.
The other workout I like to use is a tempo interval workout. After a 10-minute warm-up, start out with a set of 10 intervals of one minute each with 30 seconds easy between them. The next set is five intervals of two minutes each with 30 seconds easy between them. Then a last set of three intervals of three minutes each, and again, 30 seconds easy after each. Be sure to cool down for 10 minutes.

If you can get into a pool where there is some music or find a training partner that would do these workouts with you, water running can actually be fun besides an alternative to running on the road. When the workout is over you will know you did some good hard work in the pool and you will see some positive fitness results.

Have Fun!

How I Live

Everything is a matrix that I function inside of, there’s about 10 miles of atmosphere at the Equator, and five miles at the poles. That’s the matrix we all survive within. You apply your knowledge to that, and figure out how to survive. I’m limited to my intelligence, physical ability and mental strength every day. That’s my matrix.
What's yours?

The Importance of Hill Training for Long Distance Runners

When training for a marathon or any long distance race you are most commonly told to focus on training that increases the amount of miles that you run. Another important aspect of training is to include a long run into your weekly schedule especially leading up to the day of the race. However, there is one aspect of training that is equally important and which you should also focus on and that is building strength. Building strength is very important for increasing your endurance levels during the race. Without building strength into your legs, arms and lungs you will run out of steam half way through the race.

One great workout for building strength is running up hills or gradients. You will find that with many marathon races that the courses are usually flat however, with any city or town there is usually a hill which you will have to come across sometime. Therefore, it is better to be prepared for it are you will find that it can take a lot of power and energy out of you.

When you are doing your weekly training look to include a few hill runs to build up your strength and endurance. This will also add variety to your workout routine and keep boredom at bay. If you are lucky enough to live in a hilly area then take full advantage of them. Set a specific routine where you focus just on hill climbing and then use the flats to slow and cool down.

If you live in a flat area then you may have to do a little investigating to find a hill. I live in a flat area and my nearest hill is 8 miles away. However, I target that hill and the surrounding area to do my uphill sessions and I use the 8 miles to and from as my warm up and cool down sessions. If you are limited to one hill as I am use the hill to do repetition workouts. This means I run up the hill at a pace and then slow down to a light jog or walk on the decent to recover. After doing intensive hill workouts it is advisable to take one or two days off for recovery.

When running up hills you want to use your whole body. This means swing your arms back and forth with plenty of force. It is important to lean your upper body forward towards the hill. Leaning backward will make you unstable. When you reach the top or brow of the hill try not too slow down but keep up the pace.

Always seek a doctor's advice if you have a medical condition before doing any form of new exercise.

A Boxers Workout

Boxing Session

"Boxers and their trainers know there’s little benefit to having enormous muscles. "
There’s no denying that boxers like David Haye have incredible physiques, and while you may never want to step into the ring and take a Audley Harrison-style battering, you might want to get in shape just like a boxer.

Boxers and their trainers know there’s little benefit to having enormous muscles. Instead, an effective boxer will have excellent core muscles, be toned from head to toe and have stellar cardio. Boxers at all levels have to be supremely dedicated to rigorous training both in the gym and outside it; just doing a portion of a boxer workout will do wonders for any average guy looking to shed a few pounds or tone up. If you need proof of what the training can do for non-fighters, take a look at how Will Smith, James Franco and Matthew McConaughey turned out.

This boxer workout can be done at a gym, a boxing club if you’re more ambitious or even at home. Try it three times a week and you’ll see results before long.

Here’s how to train like a boxer:

The Warm-Up
In any workout, it’s important to get the muscles stretched and warmed up before doing anything too strenuous. To begin your boxing warm-up, take a few minutes to get your blood flowing (jogging in place, jumping jacks) before you dynamically stretch your entire body, especially the calves, arms and back.

Then, it’s time to get your heart rate up, and there’s no better way than through skipping - a traditional part of the boxer workout. If skipping isn’t something you’ve done since primary school, you might be a little rusty. Simple jumping jacks are a good alternative until you’re comfortable with the rope, but it’s best to just dive right in. Many beginners make the mistake of jumping too high and tiring themselves out. Lift your feet no more than an inch off the ground, and get comfortable with the rope by going slowly at first. Eventually, you’ll be able to increase your speed, then alternate feet. Soon, you’ll feel comfortable doing crosses, leg raises and double jumps, and maybe even trying to skip backward.

The skipping part of your warm-up should last at least 10 minutes.

Keep Your Heart Rate Up
A common phrase in boxing, and indeed in any fight sport, is: “One more round.” The men are separated from the boys in the final round, because they’ve put themselves in the best position to win through great conditioning. By the late rounds of a fight, victory is achieved more through one’s conditioning than by fight skills alone. To that end, your boxer workout should now be governed by threes and ones: three minutes on, one minute off. This structure simulates a typical boxing round, while giving you short breaks when they’re needed.

To keep your heart rate up, move into some circuit training that will strengthen your various muscle groups. With three minutes on the timer, mix in some push-ups, sit-ups and jumping jacks, doing 30 seconds of each, repeated.

Once you’ve done a simple round or two, you can add more challenging elements to your workout, like burpees, which will build the core muscles and make you more explosive. To begin, lower into a squat with your hands in front of you. Then, place your hand on the floor and kick your feet back so that you’re in the push-up position. Quickly kick back into the squat position and jump as high as you can from the squat. The key is to get full extension, but also do this exercise as quickly as you can.

Throw Some Punches
If you go to a gym where you have some space - or perhaps you’re following this workout at home - simple shadowboxing will have your arms, chest and back burning before long. I can’t teach you how to box in a few short paragraphs, but try different punches in different combinations to really work on your upper body. Throw jabs with your off-hand, and work through hooks, uppercuts and straight punches. Keep your feet moving; you should feel a burn in your calves before long.

If you have gloves, hand wraps and a heavy bag at home, here’s an exercise that will build muscle and shed calories (again, work for three minutes at a time, and you can break that three minutes into six 30-second intervals). For your first 30 seconds, throw assorted punches at the bag. Then, throw straight punches as quickly as you can, not worrying about power. For the final 30 seconds, throw power shots as hard as you’re able, then repeat all three. For a change, you can substitute in any other activity for 30 seconds (try push-ups, jumping jacks or whatever you feel you need).

Cut To The Core
Boxers build their core muscles to protect against punishing body shots; you can build yours to look and feel better. These exercises can be done at your gym, or at home if you have a medicine ball. It’s important to use a medicine ball that’s not too heavy, but at the same time pushes your body to its limits. A 5kg ball is suitable for those weighing under 75kg and a 8kg ball is good if you‘re heavier.

Sit on the ground with your legs straight in front of you, and hold the ball on the ground beside one hip. Now, keeping your legs as straight as possible, lift your feet off the ground a couple of inches. Hold your legs up and move the ball across your body, touching it to the ground next to each hip. Do this exercise in intervals of 50, making sure not to let your heels touch the ground.

Next, move to a wall, and with your knees bent at 90 degrees, “sit” with your back against the wall (you’re not actually sitting on anything). You’ll feel a burn in your abdominals right away, but you can augment the workout by holding the medicine ball straight out in front of you. Remembering to move slowly, you can lift the ball above your head, and then return it back in front of you. If this exercise is too tough, try a lighter ball.

If you have a workout partner, there are plenty of core drills with the ball you can do together.

Cool Down
Just as you should never go from a sprint to a dead stop, it’s not a good idea to end your boxer workout abruptly. Once you’ve had enough - or worked for the desired length of time - skip for another 5 to 10 minutes, then finish with a full set of stretching. This entire workout is one that is easily done in 45 minutes, though you can add weight work to extend it.

All About Abdominal Workouts

How Many Types Of Sit-ups Should I Do? 
 Sit-ups are without doubt the most overrated exercise in the gym. That’s not to say that they are not important, it’s just that they are over-used by the majority of gym goers.
 
Keeping the abdominal muscles strong is essential to help prevent back pain and help maintain core stability, but performing 10 different types of sit-ups, most of which look as if they are adapted from the Karma Sutra is a waste of time. Varying all types of exercise is certainly encouraged by most personal trainers and abdominal exercises are no exceptions but trying out sit ups that are overly complex and difficult to perform correctly is often more of a hindrance to your routine.
The maximum number of abdominal exercises I give to my clients per session rarely exceeds 3 or 4 basic movements. By ensuring that every exercise is performed slowly and correctly, the abdominals can be worked intensely in a simple fluid movement without the client worrying where their arms and legs should be.

Changing the type of abdominal exercises you perform every few weeks or so is a good idea. This keeps your interest up and works the stomach slightly differently, but avoid following everyone else’s example at the gym and looking like an amateur contortionist! Ask a fitness professional for 3 simple stomach exercises every few weeks and ensure you perform each one slowly and as instructed.

Are Sit-ups More Effective On A Stability Ball?
 
The introduction of the stability ball has helped to revolutionise the fitness industry, particularly when it comes to abdominal exercises. Now a feature of health and fitness centres all over the world, the stability ball helps provide support for the lower back and adds variety to stomach exercises.
Out of the many questions I am asked about sit-ups and the benefits of the various abdominal exercises, the question of whether performing sit-ups on the ball is better than lying on the floor is often raised. The simple answer is that yes, sit-ups performed on a stability ball are more effective for the stomach muscles than lying on the floor and MRI scans have proved this.

The abdominal contraction while executing a sit-up on a stability ball has been shown to be far more intense than when lying on the ground, proving conclusively that your abs get a far more intense workout with this method. The exercise ball has the added benefit of helping to work a selection of other muscles such as your legs and the stabilising muscles of your core. These stabilising muscles can be recruited as much or as little as you like by narrowing your foot stance (maximum engagement) or widening it (minimum engagement).
 
It is often advised that you should not put your hands behind your head whilst performing the sit-up, so that you do not pull on your neck during the movement. I always advise clients that if they wish to support the head with their hands that is fine, but you must be sure not to pull on your neck.
 
Do Sit-ups Give You A Flat Stomach?


The false belief that performing hundreds of sit-ups every day in an effort to flatten the stomach is perhaps the most popular myth I have to deal with. The number of clients I have trained over the years who have begged me to put them through a 20-minute stomach workout to help shrink their waistline is staggering.
 By performing sit-ups or ‘crunches’, as they are sometimes referred to, you are helping to strengthen and firm up the rectus abdominals muscles, more commonly known as the ‘six-pack’.
Hundreds of sit-ups may well give your stomach muscles the strength to bounce bullets but crunches will do nothing to reduce the amount of fat you have on your tummy. Abdominal fat is there because of excessive calorie consumption, so the only way to get rid of it is to burn off the calories by following a balanced diet and performing high intensity exercise such as running, cycling, aerobics and swimming.

There is one trick, however, which can help to give the appearance of a flatter stomach, regardless (within reason) of how much abdominal fat you possess. Underneath the rectus abdominals lies a band of muscle called the transverses abdominals. Also referred to as the ‘corset muscle’, the transverses abdominals helps to keep the back strong and compresses the abdomen. By exercising this muscle regularly, it can help to improve your posture and make the stomach appear flatter even though you may not have lost a single pound.

     To exercise the transverses, all you need to do are two things:

     1. Suck in your stomach, so your belly button is drawn towards your spine.
     2. While your stomach is sucked in, do not hold your breath just keep breathing normally.


You will know that you are doing this properly when you begin to feel a minor burning sensation in the deep stomach. This is a sign that the transverses abdominals has been engaged and is being worked, just as the six-pack muscles are being worked while performing crunches. Initially, this is hard to do as many people instinctively want to breathe in as they draw in the stomach, but with practice it gets easier. If you are still finding it difficult, try performing the method on your hands and knees.
This technique is by no means a miracle cure but by performing it regularly, such as in the car, watching television or visiting the in-laws, it can help both to flatten your stomach and improve your posture.

What’s wrong with Dr Gillian McKeith PhD?

I am incapable of writing about this woman without it crashing into a terrible rant but here is a man that can.
I give to you, Dr Ben Goldacre.

For years, ‘Dr’ Gillian McKeith has used her title to sell TV shows, diet books and herbal sex pills. Now the Advertising Standards Authority has stepped in. Yet the real problem is not what she calls herself, but the mumbo-jumbo she dresses up as scientific fact, says Ben Goldacre

Ben Goldacre
Monday February 12, 2007
The Guardian

Call her the Awful Poo Lady, call her Dr Gillian McKeith PhD: she is an empire, a multi-millionaire, a phenomenon, a prime-time TV celebrity, a bestselling author. She has her own range of foods and mysterious powders, she has pills to give you an erection, and her face is in every health food store in the country. Scottish Conservative politicians want her to advise the government. The Soil Association gave her a prize for educating the public. And yet, to anyone who knows the slightest bit about science, this woman is a joke.
One of those angry nerds took her down this week. A regular from my website badscience.net – I can barely contain my pride – took McKeith to the Advertising Standards Authority, complaining about her using the title “doctor” on the basis of a qualification gained by correspondence course from a non-accredited American college. He won. She may have sidestepped the publication of a damning ASA draft adjudication at the last minute by accepting – “voluntarily” – not to call herself “doctor” in her advertising any more. But would you know it, a copy of that draft adjudication has fallen into our laps, and it concludes that “the claim ‘Dr’ was likely to mislead”. The advert allegedly breached two clauses of the Committee of Advertising Practice code: “substantiation” and “truthfulness”.
Is it petty to take pleasure in this? No. McKeith is a menace to the public understanding of science. She seems to misunderstand not nuances, but the most basic aspects of biology – things that a 14-year-old could put her straight on.
She talks endlessly about chlorophyll, for example: how it’s “high in oxygen” and will “oxygenate your blood” – but chlorophyll will only make oxygen in the presence of light. It’s dark in your intestines, and even if you stuck a searchlight up your bum to prove a point, you probably wouldn’t absorb much oxygen in there, because you don’t have gills in your gut. In fact, neither do fish. In fact, forgive me, but I don’t think you really want oxygen up there, because methane fart gas mixed with oxygen is a potentially explosive combination.
Future generations will look back on this phenomenon with astonishment. Channel 4, let’s not forget, branded her very strongly, from the start, as a “clinical nutritionist”. She was Dr Gillian McKeith PhD, appearing on television every week, interpreting blood tests, and examining patients who had earlier had irrigation equipment stuck right up into their rectums. She was “Dr McKeith”, “the diet doctor”, giving diagnoses, talking knowledgeably about treatment, with complex scientific terminology, and all the authority her white coat and laboratory setting could muster. So back to the science. She says DNA is an anti-ageing constituent: if you “do not have enough RNA/DNA”, in fact, you “may ultimately age prematurely”. Stress can deplete your DNA, but algae will increase it: and she reckons it’s only present in growing cells. Is my semen growing? Is a virus growing? Is chicken liver pate growing? All of these contain plenty of DNA. She says that “each sprouting seed is packed with the nutritional energy needed to create a full-grown, healthy plant”. Does a banana plant have the same amount of calories as a banana seed? The ridiculousness is endless.
In fact, I don’t care what kind of squabbles McKeith wants to engage in over the technicalities of whether a non-accredited correspondence-course PhD from the US entitles you, by the strictest letter of the law, to call yourself “doctor”: to me, nobody can be said to have a meaningful qualification in any biology-related subject if they make the same kind of basic mistakes made by McKeith.
And the scholarliness of her work is a thing to behold: she produces lengthy documents that have an air of “referenciness”, with nice little superscript numbers, which talk about trials, and studies, and research, and papers … but when you follow the numbers, and check the references, it’s shocking how often they aren’t what she claimed them to be in the main body of the text. Or they refer to funny little magazines and books, such as Delicious, Creative Living, Healthy Eating, and my favourite, Spiritual Nutrition and the Rainbow Diet, rather than proper academic journals.
She even does this in the book Miracle Superfood, which, we are told, is the published form of her PhD. “In laboratory experiments with anaemic animals, red-blood cell counts have returned to normal within four or five days when chlorophyll was given,” she says. Her reference for this experimental data is a magazine called Health Store News. “In the heart,” she explains, “chlorophyll aids in the transmission of nerve impulses that control contraction.” A statement that is referenced to the second issue of a magazine called Earthletter.
To me this is cargo cult science, as the great Professor Richard Feynman described Melanesian religious activities 30 years ago: “During the war they saw aeroplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head as headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas – he’s the controller – and they wait for the aeroplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No aeroplanes land.”
McKeith’s pseudo-academic work is like the rituals of the cargo cult: the form is superficially right, the superscript numbers are there, the technical words are scattered about, she talks about research and trials and findings, but the substance is lacking. I actually don’t find this bit very funny. It makes me quite depressed to think about her, sitting up, perhaps alone, studiously and earnestly typing this stuff out.
One window into her world is the extraordinary way she responds to criticism: with legal threats and blatantly, outrageously misleading statements, emitted with such regularity that it’s reasonable to assume she will do the same thing with this current kerfuffle over her use of the title “doctor”. So that you know how to approach the rebuttals to come, let’s look at McKeith’s rebuttals of the recent past.
Three months ago she was censured by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for illegally selling a rather tragic range of herbal sex pills called Fast Formula Horny Goat Weed Complex, advertised as shown by a “controlled study” to promote sexual satisfaction, and sold with explicit medicinal claims. She was ordered to remove the products from sale immediately. She complied – the alternative would have been prosecution – but in response, McKeith’s website announced that the sex pills had been withdrawn because of “the new EU licensing laws regarding herbal products”. She engaged in Europhobic banter with the Scottish Herald newspaper: “EU bureaucrats are clearly concerned that people in the UK are having too much good sex,” she explained.
Rubbish. I contacted the MHRA, and they said: “This has nothing to do with new EU regulations. The information on the McKeith website is incorrect.” Was it a mistake? “Ms McKeith’s organisation had already been made aware of the requirements of medicines legislation in previous years; there was no reason at all for all the products not to be compliant with the law.” They go on. “The Wild Pink Yam and Horny Goat Weed products marketed by McKeith Research Ltd were never legal for sale in the UK.”
Now, once would be unfortunate, but this is an enduring pattern. When McKeith was first caught out on the ridiculous and erroneous claims of her CV – she claimed, for example, to have a PhD from the reputable American College of Nutrition – her representatives suggested that this was a mistake, made by a Spanish work experience kid, who posted the wrong CV. Except the very same claim about the American College of Nutrition was also in one of her books from several years previously. That’s a long work experience stint.
She even sneaked one into this very newspaper, during a profile on her: “Doubt has also been cast on the value of McKeith’s certified membership of the American Association of Nutritional Consultants, especially since Guardian journalist Ben Goldacre managed to buy the same membership online for his dead cat for $60. McKeith’s spokeswoman says of this membership: “Gillian has ‘professional membership’, which is membership designed for practising nutritional and dietary professionals, and is distinct from ‘associate membership’, which is open to all individuals. To gain professional membership Gillian provided proof of her degree and three professional references.”
Well. My dead cat Hettie is also a “certified professional member” of the AANC. I have the certificate hanging in my loo. Perhaps it didn’t even occur to the journalist that McKeith could be wrong. More likely, of course, in the tradition of nervous journalists, I suspect she was hurried, on deadline, and felt she had to get McKeith’s “right of reply” in, even if it cast doubts on – I’ll admit my beef here – my own hard-won investigative revelations about my dead cat. I mean, I don’t sign my dead cat up to bogus professional organisations for the good of my health, you know.
But those who criticise McKeith have reason to worry. McKeith goes after people, and nastily. She has a libel case against the Sun over comments they made in 2004 that has still not seen much movement. But the Sun is a large, wealthy institution, and it can protect itself with a large and well-remunerated legal team. Others can’t. A charming but – forgive me – obscure blogger called PhDiva made some relatively innocent comments about nutritionists, mentioning McKeith, and received a letter threatening costly legal action from Atkins Solicitors, “the reputation and brand-management specialists”. Google received a threatening legal letter simply for linking to – forgive me – a fairly obscure webpage on McKeith.
She has also made legal threats to a fantastically funny website called Eclectech for hosting a silly animation of McKeith singing a silly song, at around the time she was on Fame Academy.
Most of these legal tussles revolve around the issue of her qualifications, though these things shouldn’t be difficult or complicated. If anyone wanted to check my degrees, memberships, or affiliations, then they could call up the institutions, and get instant confirmation: job done. If you said I wasn’t a doctor, I wouldn’t sue you; I’d roar with laughter.
If you contact the Australasian College of Health Sciences (Portland, US) where McKeith has a “pending diploma in herbal medicine”, they say they can’t tell you anything about their students. When you contact Clayton College of Natural Health to ask where you can read her PhD, they say you can’t. What kind of organisations are these? If I said I had a PhD from Cambridge, US or UK (I have neither), it would only take you a day to find it.
But McKeith’s most heinous abuse of legal chill is exemplified by a nasty little story from 2000, when she threatened a retired professor of nutritional medicine for questioning her ideas.
Shortly after the publication of McKeith’s book Living Food for Health, before she was famous, John Garrow wrote an article about some of the rather bizarre scientific claims she was making. He was struck by the strength with which she presented her credentials as a scientist (“I continue every day to research, test and write furiously so that you may benefit …” etc). In fact, he has since said that he assumed – like many others – that she was a proper doctor. Sorry: a medical doctor. Sorry: a qualified conventional medical doctor who attended an accredited medical school.
Anyway, in this book, McKeith promised to explain how you can “boost your energy, heal your organs and cells, detoxify your body, strengthen your kidneys, improve your digestion, strengthen your immune system, reduce cholesterol and high blood pressure, break down fat, cellulose and starch, activate the enzyme energies of your body, strengthen your spleen and liver function, increase mental and physical endurance, regulate your blood sugar, and lessen hunger cravings and lose weight.”
These are not modest goals, but her thesis was that it was all possible with a diet rich in enzymes from “live” raw food – fruit, vegetables, seeds, nuts, and especially live sprouts, which “are the food sources of digestive enzymes”. McKeith even offered “combination living food powder for clinical purposes” in case people didn’t want to change their diet, and she used this for “clinical trials” with patients at her clinic.
Garrow was sceptical of her claims. Apart from anything else, as emeritus professor of human nutrition at the University of London, he knew that human animals have their own digestive enzymes, and a plant enzyme you eat is likely to be digested like any other protein. As any professor of nutrition, and indeed many GCSE biology students, could happily tell you.
Garrow read the book closely, as have I. These “clinical trials” seemed to be a few anecdotes in her book about how incredibly well McKeith’s patients felt after seeing her. No controls, no placebo, no attempt to quantify or measure improvements. So Garrow made a modest proposal, and I am quoting it in its entirety, partly because it is a rather elegantly written exposition of the scientific method by an extremely eminent academic authority on the science of nutrition, but mainly because I want you to see how politely he stated his case.
“I also am a clinical nutritionist,” began Professor Garrow, “and I believe that many of the statements in this book are wrong. My hypothesis is that any benefits which Dr McKeith has observed in her patients who take her living food powder have nothing to do with their enzyme content. If I am correct, then patients given powder which has been heated above 118F for 20 minutes will do just as well as patients given the active powder. This amount of heat would destroy all enzymes, but make little change to other nutrients apart from vitamin C, so both groups of patients should receive a small supplement of vitamin C (say 60mg/day). However, if Dr McKeith is correct, it should be easy to deduce from the boosting of energy, etc, which patients received the active powder and which the inactivated one.
“Here, then, is a testable hypothesis by which nutritional science might be advanced. I hope that Dr McKeith’s instincts, as a fellow-scientist, will impel her to accept this challenge. As a further inducement I suggest we each post, say, £1,000, with an independent stakeholder. If we carry out the test, and I am proved wrong, she will, of course, collect my stake, and I will publish a fulsome apology in this newsletter. If the results show that she is wrong I will donate her stake to HealthWatch [a medical campaigning group], and suggest that she should tell the 1,500 patients on her waiting list that further research has shown that the claimed benefits of her diet have not been observed under controlled conditions. We scientists have a noble tradition of formally withdrawing our publications if subsequent research shows the results are not reproducible – don’t we?”
This was published in – forgive me – a fairly obscure medical newsletter. Sadly, McKeith – who, to the best of my knowledge, despite all her claims about her extensive “resesarch”, has never published in a proper “Pubmed-listed” peer-reviewed academic journal – did not take up this offer to collaborate on a piece of research with a professor of nutrition.
Instead, Garrow received a call from McKeith’s lawyer husband, Howard Magaziner, accusing him of defamation and promising legal action. Garrow, an immensely affable and relaxed old academic, shrugged this off with style. He told me. “I said, ‘Sue me.’ I’m still waiting.” His offer of £1,000 still stands; I’ll make it £2,000.
But, to me, it’s tempting to dismiss the question of whether or not McKeith should call herself “doctor” as a red herring, a distraction, an unnecessary ad hominem squabble. Because despite her litigiousness, her illegal medicinal products, her ropey qualifications, her abusiveness, despite her making the wounded and obese cry on television, despite her apparently misunderstanding some of the most basic aspects of GCSE biology, while doling out “scientific” advice in a white coat, despite her farcical “academic” work, despite the unpleasantness of the food she endorses, there are still many who will claim: “You can say what you like about McKeith, but she has improved the nation’s diet.”
Let me be very clear. Anyone who tells you to eat your greens is all right by me. If that was the end of it, I’d be McKeith’s biggest fan, because I’m all in favour of “evidence-based interventions to improve the nation’s health”, as they used to say to us in medical school.
But let’s look at the evidence. Diet has been studied very extensively, and there are some things that we know with a fair degree of certainty: there is convincing evidence that diets rich in fresh fruit and vegetables, with natural sources of dietary fibre, avoiding obesity, moderate alcohol, and physical exercise, are protective against things such as cancer and heart disease.
But nutritionists don’t stop there, because they can’t: they have to manufacture complication, to justify the existence of their profession. And what an extraordinary new profession it is. They’ve appeared out of nowhere, with a strong new-age bent, but dressing themselves up in the cloak of scientific authority. Because there is, of course, a genuine body of research about nutrition and health, to which these new “nutritionists” are spectacularly unreliable witnesses. You don’t get sober professors from the Medical Research Council’s Human Nutrition Research Unit on telly talking about the evidence on food and health; you get the media nutritionists. It’s like the difference between astrology and astronomy.
These new nutritionists have a major commercial problem with evidence. There’s nothing very professional or proprietary about “eat your greens”, so they have had to push things further: but unfortunately for the nutritionists, the technical, confusing, overcomplicated, tinkering interventions that they promote are very frequently not supported by convincing evidence.
And that’s not for lack of looking. This is not about the medical hegemony neglecting to address the holistic needs of the people. In many cases, the research has been done, and we know that the more specific claims of nutritionists are actively wrong.
I’ve got too much sense to subject you to reams of scientific detail – I’ve learned from McKeith that you need theatrical abuse to hold the public’s attention – but we can easily do one representative example. The antioxidant story is one of the most ubiquitous health claims of the nutritionists. Antioxidants mop up free radicals, so in theory, looking at metabolism flow charts in biochemistry textbooks, having more of them might be beneficial to health. High blood levels of antioxidants were associated, in the 1980s, with longer life. Fruit and vegetables have lots of antioxidants, and fruit and veg really are good for you. So it all made sense.
But when you do compare people taking antioxidant supplement tablets with people on placebo, there’s no benefit; if anything, the antioxidant pills are harmful. Fruit and veg are still good for you, but as you can see, it looks as if it’s complicated and it might not just be about the extra antioxidants. It’s a surprising finding, but that’s science all over: the results are often counterintuitive. And that’s exactly why you do scientific research, to check your assumptions. Otherwise it wouldn’t be called “science”, it would be called “assuming”, or “guessing”, or “making it up as you go along”.
But don’t get distracted. Basic, sensible dietary advice, that we all know – be honest – still stands. It’s the unjustified, self-serving and unnecessary overcomplication of this basic sensible dietary advice that is, to my mind, one of the greatest crimes of the nutritionist movement. I don’t think it’s excessive to talk about consumers paralysed with confusion in supermarkets.
Although it’s just as likely that they will be paralysed with fear, because McKeith’s stock in trade is abuse, on a scale that would have any doctor struck off: making people cry for the television cameras, I assume deliberately, and using fear and bullying to get them to change their lifestyles. As a posture it is seductive, it has a sense of generating movement, but if you drag yourself away from the theatricality of souped-up recipe and lifestyle shows on telly, the evidence shows that scare campaigns tend not to get people changing their behaviour in the long term.
So what can you do? There’s the rub. In reality, again, away from the cameras, the most significant “lifestyle” cause of death and disease is social class. Here’s a perfect example. I rent a flat in London’s Kentish Town on my modest junior doctor’s salary (don’t believe what you read in the papers about doctors’ wages, either). This is a very poor working-class area, and the male life expectancy is about 70 years. Two miles away in Hampstead, meanwhile, where the millionaire Dr Gillian McKeith PhD owns a very large property, surrounded by other wealthy middle-class people, male life expectancy is almost 80 years. I know this because I have the Annual Public Health Report for Camden open on the table right now.
This phenomenal disparity in life expectancy – the difference between a lengthy and rich retirement, and a very truncated one indeed – is not because the people in Hampstead are careful to eat a handful of Brazil nuts every day, to make sure they’re not deficient in selenium, as per nutritionists’ advice.
And that’s the most sinister feature of the whole nutritionist project, graphically exemplified by McKeith: it’s a manifesto of rightwing individualism – you are what you eat, and people die young because they deserve it. They choose death, through ignorance and laziness, but you choose life, fresh fish, olive oil, and that’s why you’re healthy. You’re going to see 78. You deserve it. Not like them.
How can I be sure that this phenomenal difference in life expectancy between rich and poor isn’t due to the difference in diet? Because I’ve read the dietary intervention studies: when you intervene and make a huge effort to change people’s diets, and get them eating more fruit and veg, you find the benefits, where they are positive at all, are actually very modest. Nothing like 10 years.
But genuine public health interventions to address the real social and lifestyle causes of disease are far less lucrative, and far less of a spectacle, than anything a food crank or a TV producer would ever dream of dipping into. What prime-time TV series looks at food deserts created by giant supermarket chains, the very companies with which stellar media nutritionists so often have lucrative commercial contracts? What show deals with social inequality driving health inequality? Where’s the human interest in prohibiting the promotion of bad foods; facilitating access to nutrient-rich foods with taxation; or maintaining a clear labelling system? Where is the spectacle in “enabling environments” that naturally promote exercise, or urban planning that prioritises cyclists, pedestrians and public transport over the car? Or reducing the ever-increasing inequality between senior executive and shop-floor pay?
This is serious stuff. We don’t need any more stupid ideas about health in the world. We have a president of South Africa who has denied that HIV exists, we have mumps and measles on the rise, we have quackery in the ascendant like never before, and whatever Tony Blair might have to say about homoeopathy being a fight not worth fighting for scientists, we cannot indulge portions of pseudoscientific ludicrousness as if they don’t have wider ramifications for society, and for the public misunderstanding of science.
I am writing this article, sneakily, late, at the back of the room, in the Royal College of Physicians, at a conference discussing how to free up access to medical academic knowledge for the public. At the front, as I type, Sir Muir Gray, director of the NHS National Electronic Library For Health, is speaking: “Ignorance is like cholera,” he says. “It cannot be controlled by the individual alone: it requires the organised efforts of society.” He’s right: in the 19th and 20th centuries, we made huge advances through the provision of clean, clear water; and in the 21st century, clean, clear information will produce those same advances.
Gillian McKeith has nothing to contribute: and Channel 4, which bent over backwards to dress her up in the cloak of scientific authority, should be ashamed of itself.


‘With all due respect, you’re wrong’: When McKeith put a cabbie in his place

Here is a bizarre story, which McKeith is evidently proud of, because not only does she recount it in her book, she has also recounted it in other published articles. She is in a cab, and the cab driver has spotted her, and tries to spark up a conversation:
“As I sat down to enjoy the ride and sighed a sense of relief in honour of some quiet time, I barely heard some mumbling from Harry to break a much cherished silence. Ignoring it to soak in the rapidly moving scenery, I heard it again … ‘You know, fish has more omegas than flax,’ he stated. ‘I beg your pardon,’ I said. ‘I said that fish has more omegas than flax seeds,’ he re-stated. The only thing I could think of was: ‘Why was this invasive, somewhat jovial, but truly kind man, talking about flax …’ ‘In all due respect, you’re wrong, Harry.
Flax seeds contain far greater levels of the healthy oils (omega-3 and omega-6) in a properly balanced and assimilable form,’ I explained. ‘No, I disagree,’ he argued. ‘What do you mean, you disagree? Have you spent years conducting clinical research, working with patients, lecturing, teaching, studying the omega oils in flax, obtaining worldwide data, compiling one of the largest private health libraries on the planet, and writing extensively on the topic?’ I asked. Not to mention writing this very article on this very day.
‘No,’ Harry feebly replied. I wondered, ‘Are you a scientist, a biochemist, a botanist, or have you spent a lifetime studying food and biochemistry as I have done?’ ‘No,’ he again replied. ‘So, where do you get such stuff? Where is your scientific authority?’ I demanded. Harry proudly announced: ‘Oh, my wife is a doctor – a gynaecologist – by the way.’ ‘Is she a food specialist or nutritional biochemist as well?’ I quickly retorted. ‘Um, ah, well, no, but she is a doctor,’ he offered.”
Charming. But flax seeds contain oestrogenic compounds, and fibre, so they’re not very “assimilable” unless you crush them, in which case they taste foul, and they’re sold as a laxative in doses of 15g. And you will need a lot of them. When you account for the poor conversion in the body from plant-form omega oils to the animal forms that are most beneficial (called DHA and EPA) then flax seeds and fish contain roughly the same amounts.
But in the real world, rather than the raw figures, it’s very easy to eat 100g of mackerel, whereas it’s tricky to get a tablespoon of flax seed into you. (Similarly, parsley is a rich source of vitamin C, but you’re not going to eat an orange sized lump of it.) As for “properly balanced”, I don’t know if she means spiritually or biologically, but fish is much higher in omega-3, which most people would say is better.
So… O frabjous day. And it’s all thanks to a badscience regular who wishes to remain anonymous. We could do with more of your sort, come and play in the badscience.net forums if you’re in a motivated mood, where there are some fun plots being hatched in the new activism room. Hurrah!

McKeith’s responses:
Lots of bits of media from this, the fun ones are where Max Clifford responds to my 4,500 word research-heavy torpedo of her science and bullying by saying I’m jealous of her money. Lots more of these kicking around, I’ll bung them up when I get the chance, this from Irish radio, another from Radio 4.
badscience.net/files/gillian_ire_radio.mp3
Also I see she’s been suggesting the ASA draft ruling was about her being a medical doctor: this is not so, the ASA draft ruling, of which I have a copy, says very clearly: “We considered that people would expect the term “Dr” in the leaflet to refer to a medical qualification, or to a doctorate from a UK university or accredited insitution [my italics].”